SDP focuses on national politics with a special emphasis on South Dakota. It also includes posts on philosophy, science and culture. SDP was founded by Jason Van Beek, who stopped blogging after becoming a staffer for Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and is currently operated by Ken Blanchard.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Mulling Over Mandates

Many conservatives have objected to the mandate in the health care act that forces them to buy insurance if they lack it. They have argued that the government does not have the authority to make them purchase goods and services. Democrats, have, by and large, been unmoved by such arguments. It will be interesting, therefore, to see what sort of reception State Rep. Hal Wick receives for his new proposal that would require South Dakotans over the age of 21 to buy guns (for self-defense). Bob Mercer of Pure Pierre Politics has denounced the move as a waste of time. He is probably right. This would have been better as a hypothetical scenario, but it does, I think, help show what sort of precedent the healthcare mandate could set. And it should prompt a discussion over the issue. If it is reasonable for the government to require Americans to purchase insurance, is it also reasonable for the government to require Americans to purchase guns? What about birth control? What can Americans be forced to buy and what can't they? What standards should we use to determine this? I look forward to the debate.

Comments

Alix: Vast numbers of bills that have no chance of passing are sponsored every year in Congress and across these United States. Many are introduced merely to make a point. This one seems to do that rather well.

"If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failingto engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would havebeen in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only." I am not here endorsing the decision, but I do think the argument is one that proponents of the bill have not yet come close to addressing.

My preference would be to have a single payer system. No one would have to buy anything from any corporate, cooperative or non-profit health care insurer. They could simply sign up for a government program, such as Medicare for all. The health insurance industry would survive only if they could outcompete the federal government or provide supplemental policies.

Republican health care policy since the 1990s has insisted on the maintenance of the for-profit health insurance industry from which they have derived many millions of dollars in campaign donations (which are paid for by increasing your premiums). In seeking to do that, the Republicans have consistently joined the health insurance lobby as a supporter (up until last year) of a health insurance mandate. In order to try to maintain the health insurance industry support for comprehensive health care reform, the Obama Administration felt it necessary to jettison the constitutional single payer system, and the less satisfactory public option and support the Republican/health insurance industry position.

When it comes to Republican positions on health care, follow the money. They don't care about health or the constitution.

With all due respect, Donald, The Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. The Republicans couldn't and didn't force them to do much of anything.

If the Democrats cared about health and the constitution, they might have done their job, which is not only to legislate but also to deliberate. Had they bothered to do this, then perhaps they would not have run into questions about their bill's constitutionality. In my view, their negligence is more to blame for their current struggles than Republican greed.

Miranda and KB: it is true that Democrats who were bought by the health insurance lobby have followed the Republican lead. Shame on them.

We don't just disagree on what to do with the problem of health care. We disagree mostly on whether people should have access to basic health care. Republicans do not. We know this because every time they have control of government they do not act on any of their supposed ideas to broaden access. Only the Democrats have acted. The Republicans' so-called ideas on health are there to serve as window dressing. They are not serious proposals. We know this because when their health coverage mandate was enacted, they oppose it and file suit against it.

The original Republican idea for an Individual Mandate is only partially true. The Republicans wanted a mandate for Employers to provide health insurance, that was also coupled with a Tax Credit, a Tort Reform & Cap, an "Opt Out Option", and also coupled with idea of portablity.

As a matter of fact there have been several pieces of legislation that had some sort of mandate in it, supported both by Democrats and Republicans since Nixon.

The impression you give is that Republicans were for a strict Insurance Company driven Individual Mandate, and now do not support it strictly because of politics. That is not even close to accurate.

Republican and Conservative positions have evolved quite abit, and there is alot of if, and's, and but's involved.

A mandate on employers to provide health care? Yeah, and if that was enacted how long would it take for the Republicans to file suit against it. The public isn't interested in your bait and switch. There will never be a perfect plan. Certainly progressives would have had a far different plan.

By the way, the current plan is coupled with tax credits for individuals and businesses, some of which have already gone into effect. Are we going to repeal those, too?

I doubt it! But the main problem here is that people are trying to sell the idea that Republicans don't want to do anything...as if they are evil people.....that just is not the case. And the more people try to sell it, the deeper the trench gets in terms of "solving the problem," because at the end of the day, what we are planning to do right now with ObamaCare is going to lead to Single Payer....that's by design.... and the American People rounding reject that.

Republicans want and have offered several different plans. If the Democrats don't want to walk back a little bit of what they have done, then it is going to get repealed.

Why waste your time arguing with Donald. Like all liberals, absent intellectual support for his views he dismisses all contrary opinions as the product of character flaws on the part of conservatives. If you disagree with him you are either evil, or the ignorant dupe of those who are eveil. That is the sum total of Donald's defense of all liberal positions.

KB made a great point in his post. Obamacare has as much constitutional justification as the mandatory gun bill. That is to say they are both an abomination to free people. So let's await your response Domald- am I ignorant, evil or both?

The TARP was specifically to pvreent a panic and widespread failure of the financial systems, which would have completely destroyed the economy. It would have made the Depression seem like a picnic.And, it worked.Unfortunately, the reason it was necessary is because big government politicians, mainly Democrats, but also liberal and compassionate conservatives like Bush, decided to use the power of government to create untenable and financially unsound results, such as increased homeownership for the poor and minorities. In doing so, it was government who distorted the risk/reward curve in the home finance sector. Never forget that the current economic problem is because of politicians using the power of government to create unrealistic fairy-tale outcomes.Republicans reluctantly voted for it, but let's not forget that Pelosi and Reid pushed hard for TARP to pass. So did Obama.The principles of the free market still remain the best method to increase health care coverage and to reduce costs. Currently, most state governments strictly limit competition in health care insurance and do not permit out of state competition. They also lard up the required minimum coverages for health insurance, because they get campaign donations from medical special interest groups. Also, they limit competition because their in-state insurers ply them with donations and contributions to pvreent competition.I'm guessing you're pretty clueless about things, eh? That would explain your support of HopeyChangey.

When drcemoats lost When drcemoats lost any point They star with personal attacks, or just being nasty, instead of saying Maybe we should change and being more like the other side , so all you ball of liberals star with your nasty comments, I now your hate has to come out

How will he enforce this law? How will CCW horleds be warned of the presence of a legislator?Will the legislator need to carry a warning sign visible from 1000 feet?Maybe a harness with a big red barrage balloon attached to it? Or an entourage of loud professional wailers?

The Republicans are a party that once represented true ctoservanism. But, that's all that the Republican party is. It is just a party. Now what Conservatism is believing, and keeping true to the Constitution word verbatim. Conservativism is also defending the Conststution as well. Keeping it the way the fore fathers wanted it. Conservatism also stands for smaller government too! EDIT: Also Democrats are also a party. Liberalis is also a socialist ideology that sadly the Democrats have fallen into.